AQ"s DBS A reality?

[Fergymunster]

I'm curiuos about the AQ Jaguar RCA.One is being broken in for me to try at a local store.

[superpanavision70mm]

I've seen them and heard them at a local shop near me. It was difficult for me to really notice any difference beccause the other cables used were all equally high-end. Sorry can't help.

[Fergymunster]

I've seen them and heard them at a local shop near me. It was difficult for me to really notice any difference beccause the other cables used were all equally high-end. Sorry can't help.
Thanks for the responce.I think I'm going to bag that idea as that cable is around $275 and from what I researched the Jaguar is exactly like the King Cobra except the Jaguar has DBS.Also my AQ King Cobra is now fully broken in and after around 300 hours of play it's the most vital link in my system and I would be foolish to try to better it.

[ruadmaa]

Thanks for the responce.I think I'm going to bag that idea as that cable is around $275 and from what I researched the Jaguar is exactly like the King Cobra except the Jaguar has DBS.Also my AQ King Cobra is now fully broken in and after around 300 hours of play it's the most vital link in my system and I would be foolish to try to better it.

Please see the attached link "10 Biggest Lies In Audio" and read lie number 6.

Cables do not "Burn In" Never have, never will. A cable that is used for 1000 hours will sound exactly the same as a brand new cable, PERIOD.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

[musicoverall]

Please see the attached link "10 Biggest Lies In Audio" and read lie number 6.

Cables do not "Burn In" Never have, never will. A cable that is used for 1000 hours will sound exactly the same as a brand new cable, PERIOD.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Never experienced it myself but then again I buy my cables used.

But for a different opinion, one should check out other audio mags such as Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. They claim to have experienced cable burn in.

Ruadmaa, thanks for this link. Isn't he about 80 years old now? Very doubtful he still has the hearing capability for subtleties so I wouldn't take his opinions to the bank. Still, as with all audio magazines, he has his target audience... his choir to preach to, so to speak. It's very unlikely that someone as extreme as Aczel would be taken seriously by the subjective side of audio.

[Fergymunster]

Please see the attached link "10 Biggest Lies In Audio" and read lie number 6.

Cables do not "Burn In" Never have, never will. A cable that is used for 1000 hours will sound exactly the same as a brand new cable, PERIOD.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
Look,I'm not in the mood to get into a fight with you.I know as a fact that the cable sounds signifcantly better then it did 300 hours prior to me attaching it to my system.

[ruadmaa]

Look,I'm not in the mood to get into a fight with you.I know as a fact that the cable sounds signifcantly better then it did 300 hours prior to me attaching it to my system.

Why don't you get a brand new cable of a similar type and see if you can tell which one you are listening to. A wire doesn't burn in, it simply conducts electricity. It doesn't conduct it any differently from the first minute you use it to the last. No change whatsoever. Sorry, scientific fact.

As for getting into a fight, I simply told you a fact. Take it for what you will.

You may also wish to read:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html

[E-Stat]

A wire doesn't burn in, it simply conducts electricity. It doesn't conduct it any differently from the first minute you use it to the last. No change whatsoever. Sorry, scientific fact.
Or maybe factoid. There is a difference to be found with the dialectric.

rw

[superpanavision70mm]

I have never experienced a difference in sound with certain gear over a period of time or even cables for that matter, but I do think that speakers break in a bit with time.

[musicoverall]

I have never experienced a difference in sound with certain gear over a period of time or even cables for that matter, but I do think that speakers break in a bit with time.

But which PSB speakers do you own? I've always wanted to hear those smaller floorstanding Image speakers. I've heard the Stratus series and also some of their small bookshelf speakers. Always an impressive line even for a confirmed planar guy like me.

[Fergymunster]

Why don't you get a brand new cable of a similar type and see if you can tell which one you are listening to. A wire doesn't burn in, it simply conducts electricity. It doesn't conduct it any differently from the first minute you use it to the last. No change whatsoever. Sorry, scientific fact.

As for getting into a fight, I simply told you a fact. Take it for what you will.

You may also wish to read:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html
Ok,maybe breack-in is the wrong term.Here's how I noticed a dramatic difference.I have two sets of AQ king cobra's.One is hooked up to my Mini system into a Sirius reciever.The other is hooked up to the CA azur 640c into the Creek 21se amp.Since I use the Mini system- Siruis combination much more I thought after awhile of changing the cables around as there was something lacking in the CA-Creek combination.Once they were attached the difference was dramatic and sustained.Since you seem to know alot cables you tell me what happened to cause such a dramatic effect.

[ruadmaa]

Ok,maybe breack-in is the wrong term.Here's how I noticed a dramatic difference.I have two sets of AQ king cobra's.One is hooked up to my Mini system into a Sirius reciever.The other is hooked up to the CA azur 640c into the Creek 21se amp.Since I use the Mini system- Siruis combination much more I thought after awhile of changing the cables around as there was something lacking in the CA-Creek combination.Once they were attached the difference was dramatic and sustained.Since you seem to know alot cables you tell me what happened to cause such a dramatic effect.

No amount of break in or usage would account for the dramatic differences you cited.

[Fergymunster]

No amount of break in or usage would account for the dramatic differences you cited.
Oh yeah,"It's just my imagination runny away with me"Rolling Stones

[ruadmaa]

Oh yeah,"It's just my imagination runny away with me"Rolling Stones

You were given FACTS, that you choose to believe myths is up to you. It will ultimately cost you a lot of money in the end with no significant improvement in your audio system.

[JohnMichael]

Oh yeah,"It's just my imagination runny away with me"Rolling Stones


Some of us are more sensitive to changes in cables. You do hear what you hear.

[Fergymunster]

You were given FACTS, that you choose to believe myths is up to you. It will ultimately cost you a lot of money in the end with no significant improvement in your audio system.
Whatever,you have your scientific theory's and I have a priceless system.No need to argue as I'm enjoying my headphones right now,Good luck

[musicoverall]

You were given FACTS, that you choose to believe myths is up to you. It will ultimately cost you a lot of money in the end with no significant improvement in your audio system.

I have no opinion of cable burn-in whatsoever but I still have to ask - what facts? What I saw was opinions by Peter Aczel, Gene DellaSalla and previously, by Roger Russell (although perhaps not about burn in... just some comments curiously devoid of current facts about cables in general - btw, a paper that our own resident scientist JNeutron said had so many holes he could drive a truck through it). What facts? What did I miss?

[ruadmaa]

I have no opinion of cable burn-in whatsoever but I still have to ask - what facts? What I saw was opinions by Peter Aczel, Gene DellaSalla and previously, by Roger Russell (although perhaps not about burn in... just some comments curiously devoid of current facts about cables in general - btw, a paper that our own resident scientist JNeutron said had so many holes he could drive a truck through it). What facts? What did I miss?

Perhaps you should tell JNeutron that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll bet he would shoot you full of holes. You also might mention to Gene that he's full of hot air. Personally I highly respect the opinions of both men.

[E-Stat]

I have no opinion of cable burn-in whatsoever but I still have to ask - what facts? What I saw was opinions by Peter Aczel, Gene DellaSalla and previously, by Roger Russell (although perhaps not about burn in... just some comments curiously devoid of current facts about cables in general - btw, a paper that our own resident scientist JNeutron said had so many holes he could drive a truck through it). What facts? What did I miss?
None really. If you follow the link, you will find that DeSalla's answer is:

"Break In" is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon.

Therefore, it does not exist. Can he explain gravity?

rw

[ruadmaa]

None really. If you follow the link, you will find that DeSalla's answer is:

"Break In" is not a proven audible or measurable phenomenon.

Therefore, it does not exist. Can he explain gravity?

rw

We are talking about electricity, not gravity, and electricity can be measured quite exactly. (please tell Jneutron that electricity can't be measured, see what he says) If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device.

[E-Stat]

If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device.
Well, there are zero measuring devices of any sort that support my experience quantifying audible differences among cables so you'll have to forgive my skepticism over your blanket statement. :)

Tell me, what is the speaker cable inductance threshold for hearing HF rolloff with my electrostats? Surely you have an empirical number and demonstrable proof to support your response. The transformers fall to about 2 ohms above 10k. The cables are 8 feet in length.

rw

[ruadmaa]

Well, there are zero measuring devices of any sort that support my experience quantifying audible differences among cables so you'll have to forgive my skepticism over your blanket statement. :)

Tell me, what is the speaker cable inductance threshold for hearing HF rolloff with my electrostats? Surely you have an empirical number and demonstrable proof to support your response. The transformers fall to about 2 ohms above 10k. The cables are 8 feet in length.

rw

Don't ask me, I am not even remotely interested in electrical problems. I'm sure there are many who would be glad to answer your math problem. As for me, it has no bearing in actual hi-fi purchasing. If I were interested in electrostatic speakers I would simply go out and demo a few. I see very few people in hi-fi shops with calculators to figure out empirical numbers in relation to the speakers they are listening to.

I enjoy Mr. Mozart and Mr.Beethoven, that doesn't mean that I have to play an instrument or even understand how to read music.

[E-Stat]

Don't ask me, I am not even remotely interested in electrical problems. I'm sure there are many who would be glad to answer your math problem. As for me, it has no bearing in actual hi-fi purchasing.
Interesting response. Yet you say that "If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device."

I'm no longer hearing that confident swagger. I think that sentiment vividly illustrates the fact that cable metrics are frequently analyzed in a vacuum with no concern for system matching. The real world consists of interactions with various components (and external factors like RF) where there is no single answer.

rw

[ruadmaa]

Interesting response. Yet you say that "If a cable is changed so much by burn in that it could be heard by a human ear, it could certainly be measured by even the crudest electrical measuring device."

I'm no longer hearing that confident swagger. I think that sentiment vividly illustrates the fact that cable metrics are frequently analyzed in a vacuum with no concern for system matching. The real world consists of interactions with various components (and external factors like RF) where there is no single answer.

rw

I have been highly interested in and purchasing hi-fi gear for well over 40 years. Yes, I most certainly live in the real world. And amazing as it may seem, I have never had to do a math problem when I went to pick out audio gear. I'm afraid that I have to rely on the specifications listed by the manufacturer of that gear as most people do. I most certainly relied on people like Julian Hirsch and Ian Masters to do my measuring for me. I seriously doubt that you could do better than they.

[E-Stat]

I most certainly relied on people like Julian Hirsch and Ian Masters to do my measuring for me. I seriously doubt that you could do better than they.
I am confident that Julian was capable of obtaining very accurate measurements. The relevant question is: so what? Back when I was fifteen, I took my AR amplifier to a McIntosh clinic to get its distortion measured. Sure enough, the specs were as good as the magazines reported. I learned an important lesson then about the (lack of) importance of such. Why then did it sound horrible at low levels? The numbers provided data but not information.

May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

rw

[ruadmaa]

I am confident that Julian was capable of obtaining very accurate measurements. The relevant question is: so what? Back when I was fifteen, I took my AR amplifier to a McIntosh clinic to get its distortion measured. Sure enough, the specs were as good as the magazines reported. I learned an important lesson then about the (lack of) importance of such. Why then did it sound horrible at low levels? The numbers provided data but not information.

May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

rw

So, - - - have you measured a burned in cable against a brand new one and found any differences??? If so, please enlighten us all. You seem to be in the quantifying business.

[E-Stat]

So, - - - have you measured a burned in cable against a brand new one and found any differences??? If so, please enlighten us all. You seem to be in the quantifying business.
A much better question would be: what factors other than the standard placebo effect response could be responsible for this common observation? Do you think that the system should be analyzed rather than taking the cable out of it's context?

Like musicoverall, I don't really care about break in. I just listen to components and withhold serious judgement for a while. I just don't understand those who make pronouncements about that which is not fully understood.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

I don't want to get into the middle of anything here but that article "10 audio lies" is the biggest load of crap I've read in a long time. I am not familiar with the writer but I have serious doubts as to him ever having any hands on audio experience. I believe he has an axe to grind or just wanted to get a buzz going by printing contradictory babble. I will try to stick with cables since that's the topic but all 10 of his rants were off base.

You know if you want to use zip cord for speaker wire that's your choice, and if you've actually tried better wire and didn't think you heard a difference, I don't see how, but too bad for you. But it really makes my blood boil when I do hear a difference and some one says it's my imagination. Whether it's some one here or an idiot with a english degree who is paid to write articles that attract readers, and what's better to attract readers than causing controversy by going against popular opinions on audio subjects.

I've returned products that I've tried and didn't hear a difference or not enough to warrant the expense. I have a hard time believing that anyone really wants to spend hundreds of dollars when they don't have to. I am fortunate enough to have a good relationship with a couple shops here and I audition before I buy, when I put something in my system, I'm not sitting there thinking boy I hope I get to spend a few hundred more dollars.

Not all audible differences can be measured. Explain why your average receiver will have better spec sheets than a Krell or Levinson. That may not be the best analogy but there are materials and designs that do make sonic differences that there are no way to measure. What about capacitors for instance, you may have several measuring the same micro farrads yet because of the material inside they have different sonic effects on audio equipment.

I personally have not noticed any differences in my cables over time but I have never compared a new one to one I've had in my system with many hours use either. I believe there must be some break in period because some companies have a device called a cable cooker for just that purpose. I have in many instances heard sonic differences between brands of cables.

[superpanavision70mm]

Why can't we all be friends?

The cable debate really seems to fire people up on this site. The camps are divided. Those that say they DO make a difference and those that say they DON'T. The only real debate that the disbelievers have is the argument about 'fact' or 'scientific proof', which is all fine and dandy except for one minor problem. All the math in the world doesn't mean squat to most people. What does matter is a true difference. We are not talking about something very microscopic here....the cables that I have tested and compared have all shown dramatic differences that are noticeable quickly to even the most uninterested listener.

So if everyone wants to keep this debate going on and on that's fine, but there will really never be a final conclusion because no one actually wants to take the time to listen to one anothers systems and perhaps become convinced otherwise.

[musicoverall]

Perhaps you should tell JNeutron that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll bet he would shoot you full of holes. You also might mention to Gene that he's full of hot air. Personally I highly respect the opinions of both men.

He said Roger Russell is full of hot air and I agree. I would therefore have no reason to tell JNeutron he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I respect that you respect the opinions of both men. But you claimed that the Della Salla link was "fact". Now that we know that was a misstatement, we're all ok. Carry on.

[musicoverall]

Naaaaahhhhhh! :)

Short version - he was once able to hear differences in cables, amps, etc. Then he reviewed the Fourier speaker and "forgot" to tell his readers that he was part-owner. Naturally the review was a rave and the speakers were perfectly ordinary. The audiophile community (media, etc) came down on Aczel pretty hard and he did something right for a change - he went away. When he came back, he became the biggest most extreme objectivist the world has ever known. I'd say he's grinding his axe quite nicely. He even has a readership - small but vocal.

[musicoverall]

May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

rw

...I'd want to rest in peace myself! Or at least it would cure my obsessive music buying problem! :)

[jneutron]

but all 10 of his rants were off base.

No, you are incorrect. Not all ten are off base. A few of them are correct.

John

[musicoverall]

No, you are incorrect. Not all ten are off base. A few of them are correct.

John

Which ones?

[jneutron]

Which ones?


1. Cables.... A mix. States RLC matters, correct. Then provides an example of a coat hanger (magnetic, wide spacing) as equiv, even though R and L are incredibly different. Both sides at the same time??? Ok...

2. Tubes..another mix..tube sound vs transistor..tubes rarely have low Z high current slew signals internal to the chassis while zistors do. Major diff..

3. Antidigital..Reconstruction accuracy in the time domain we hear is based entirely on the depth of the digital algorithms. Too shallow gives loss of time and amplitude accuracy. And, has he ever heard the 11 uSec interchannel shift??

4. Listening test..He has no clue as to human localization parameterics, especially the time dependence to changes in cues. Use of any switching style listening test for image change discernment is futile without consideration of this.

5. Feedback without control of in-chassis magnetic fields is a mixed bag. Pos and neg rails in ss amps project different field patterns, and affect feedback based on the quadrant of operation..

6. Burn in..In essence, correct. It is not the cables that are burning in, it is the human re-interpretation of changed cues.

7. Bi wire..He's never calculated the dissipation loss envelope for single vs two wire sets. And, he is incorrect that whomever figures it out will garner major scientific prizes.

Oh, and magnets in shoes to indeed do something. They produce discomfort.

8. Power conditioning.. He knows nothing at all about ground loop currents. Guess anyone who hears hum is simply hearing things..The good thing about hum, is it announces it'self. Without it, the user is unaware there is a problem. Bryston was aware..

9. CD treatments.He needs to learn what "dielectric coefficient, and "light dispersion" is. While I do concur on the green thingy, I am familiar with optics.. Sometimes, a fluid can be used to "buff" out, even temporarily, an interface issue. This has even more meaning for CD's that are burned over 8x, as the reflection diff between a 1 and a 0 is less.

10. Golden ear..It depends on what one is listening for. Localization cue training has been reported by researchers, down to 1.5 uSec capability.

Cheers, John

PS. Sorry for the tech talk, guys...this forum is not supposed to be for that, but I don't think anybody would look in the lab for my response.

PPS..sheesh, the typo's one gets when one doesn't look at the keyboard...

[musicoverall]

1. Cables.... A mix. States RLC matters, correct. Then provides an example of a coat hanger (magnetic, wide spacing) as equiv, even though R and L are incredibly different. Both sides at the same time??? Ok...

2. Tubes..another mix..tube sound vs transistor..tubes rarely have low Z high current slew signals internal to the chassis while zistors do. Major diff..

3. Antidigital..Reconstruction accuracy in the time domain we hear is based entirely on the depth of the digital algorithms. Too shallow gives loss of time and amplitude accuracy. And, has he ever heard the 11 uSec interchannel shift??

4. Listening test..He has no clue as to human localization parameterics, especially the time dependence to changes in cues. Use of any switching style listening test for image change discernment is futile without consideration of this.

5. Feedback without control of in-chassis magnetic fields is a mixed bag. Pos and neg rails in ss amps project different field patterns, and affect feedback based on the quadrant of operation..

6. Burn in..In essence, correct. It is not the cables that are burning in, it is the human re-interpretation of changed cues.

7. Bi wire..He's never calculated the dissipation loss envelope for single vs two wire sets. And, he is incorrect that whomever figures it out will garner major scientific prizes.

Oh, and magnets in shoes to indeed do something. They produce discomfort.

8. Power conditioning.. He knows nothing at all about ground loop currents. Guess anyone who hears hum is simply hearing things..The good thing about hum, is it announces it'self. Without it, the user is unaware there is a problem. Bryston was aware..

9. CD treatments.He needs to learn what "dielectric coefficient, and "light dispersion" is. While I do concur on the green thingy, I am familiar with optics.. Sometimes, a fluid can be used to "buff" out, even temporarily, an interface issue. This has even more meaning for CD's that are burned over 8x, as the reflection diff between a 1 and a 0 is less.

10. Golden ear..It depends on what one is listening for. Localization cue training has been reported by researchers, down to 1.5 uSec capability.

Cheers, John

PS. Sorry for the tech talk, guys...this forum is not supposed to be for that, but I don't think anybody would look in the lab for my response.

PPS..sheesh, the typo's one gets when one doesn't look at the keyboard...

GREAT stuff. I'll look up what I don't understand of the specifics but I think generally - even for those of us that are scientifcally challenged - you've given us another example of what happens when opinions are taken as facts. But could you clarify what you mean in item #6? What cues are changed and how? Thanks.

Oh, sorry for the question mark in the title - tried to edit it out but it'll only let me edit text.

[jneutron]

GREAT stuff. I'll look up what I don't understand of the specifics but I think generally - even for those of us that are scientifcally challenged - you've given us another example of what happens when opinions are taken as facts. But could you clarify what you mean in item #6? What cues are changed and how? Thanks.

Oh, sorry for the question mark in the title - tried to edit it out but it'll only let me edit text.

When we hear a sound, our ears give us information that the brain uses to interpret where it is coming from. Our ears give the brain two essential things..the ear to ear time delay, and an ear to ear level difference. With both of these, the brain has enough to go by to localize a source.

If a source is directly in front, there is no arrival difference and no intensity difference.

If a source is on our right, the right ear gets it first, and gets it loudest.

The music recorded in a studio is put onto the final two channel recording by using a pan pot, which uses only intensity as a side cue. Unfortunately, humans are not hardwired to interpret only the intensity difference to locate a sound, we are wired to also use the delay from ear to ear.

We have to learn, or acclimate, to this different style of sound locating. It is unnatural. With headphones, the brain interprets the information as being within the head (unnatural for most, I think). With speakers, the added ear to ear stuff helps confuse the brain into thinking the source is in front of us. But still, in a very un-natural way...speakers produce 4 images for one intended image source. 1, the desired image cause by the right ear getting the right signal, the left the left signal. 2, the image that happens when the right speaker gets to the left ear, and the left to the right ear. 3, the left speaker by itself, and 4, the right.. temporally and amplitude wise, we tend to interpret #1 as the primary image, but that requires the brain reject the other three. A learned response..

Any part of the reproduction chain that can change either the intensity difference or timing difference between channels, will alter the cues the brain needs to localize. Once a change is made, it takes a while to adjust...remember, the brain has to learn how to reject the spurius images.

Our sensitivity to these ear to ear differences extends down to the 1.5 to 5 uSec range for time delay, and strange as it seems, less than .1 dB..

I know of nobody in the audio world who has demonstrated the ability to measure those type of differences accurately at the low impedances of a speaker, even for simple two tone sines, nevermind a complex signal.

The researchers I speak to do not even understand the basic concepts of 2-D localization, nevermind the more complex angular and spacial first and second order derivatives necessary for differential localization and image stability.

It's not rocket science, for goodness sake...sheesh..

Cheers, John

PS...differential localization is our ability to determine the difference in spacial location of two sources, like two people ten feet away side by side talking to us. We are far more able to discern the relative positions of two people in space than we are to discern one person's absolute location. We key on one source as a reference point.



Image stability is how solid the virtual image is in space, even though the signal is being massaged either by the electronics, or by the position of our head. As an example of this, consider the toe in of a speaker that beams it's highs..if the beams intersect in front of you, when you move to the right, the left signal becomes louder while the right becomes weaker, shifting the image to the left. That is not what happens with a real source..and if the mids do not beam, the mid image will act more naturally. The effect will be to seperate the frequencies of the image spacially..Disembodiment.

[musicoverall]

But I'm still not getting how this ties into cable burn in. Are you saying there could be a change in sound but it's not the cable, it's our body position and the change in localization?

Might that not be true of a lot of component changes (swaps)? Your explanation reveals a lot but I'm quite certain I'm missing your point with respect to cable burn in.

[jneutron]

But I'm still not getting how this ties into cable burn in. Are you saying there could be a change in sound but it's not the cable, it's our body position and the change in localization?

Might that not be true of a lot of component changes (swaps)? Your explanation reveals a lot but I'm quite certain I'm missing your point with respect to cable burn in.

Ah, sorry.

The cable is electrically locked. It's RLC parameters can be sufficient to alter the signals in such a way that the cues we use for localization are changed. When you put a new cable in, your brain is not adapted to the new cues. It takes time for you to acclimate to those new cues, but as you do, you are more aware of the images that are being presented.

So the cable is not changing as in burn in, but your ability to discern image placement does. Note that this does not mean that you are getting better or worse hearing wise, just that you are adapting to the current stimulus.

Unfortunately, slow adaptation by the human is not considered when doing ABX or DBT or SBT... The assumption is that memory is short, so test quick..

That is a significant test methodology error. The test method has to be sensitive to the entity being tested. Currently accepted scientific methods are not sensitive to subtle localization changes...that being imaging, soundstage, focus..because the localization cues are being altered from one completely un-natural relationship, to another un-natural one.

One of the typical arguments for localization not being an issue includes the term "head in a vice". If absolute positioning were the issue, yes I would agree. But absolute image positioning is not the issue, it is the relative image positioning...and further down the line, not only relative, but how the relative positioning sensitivity is affected by other entities..IOW, image stability in light of perturbations.

But image stability is a concept that is unknown in the world of audio. Differential localization isn't even known..they have a long way to go, don't they?

Cheers, John

[musicoverall]

Ah, sorry.

The cable is electrically locked. It's RLC parameters can be sufficient to alter the signals in such a way that the cues we use for localization are changed. When you put a new cable in, your brain is not adapted to the new cues. It takes time for you to acclimate to those new cues, but as you do, you are more aware of the images that are being presented.

So the cable is not changing as in burn in, but your ability to discern image placement does. Note that this does not mean that you are getting better or worse hearing wise, just that you are adapting to the current stimulus.

Unfortunately, slow adaptation by the human is not considered when doing ABX or DBT or SBT... The assumption is that memory is short, so test quick..

That is a significant test methodology error. The test method has to be sensitive to the entity being tested. Currently accepted scientific methods are not sensitive to subtle localization changes...that being imaging, soundstage, focus..because the localization cues are being altered from one completely un-natural relationship, to another un-natural one.

One of the typical arguments for localization not being an issue includes the term "head in a vice". If absolute positioning were the issue, yes I would agree. But absolute image positioning is not the issue, it is the relative image positioning...and further down the line, not only relative, but how the relative positioning sensitivity is affected by other entities..IOW, image stability in light of perturbations.

But image stability is a concept that is unknown in the world of audio. Differential localization isn't even known..they have a long way to go, don't they?

Cheers, John

Thanks!

Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

Even ye scientists don't always agree, eh? :)

[jneutron]

Thanks!

Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

That is why he says cables don't make a difference. From his scientific understanding and viewpoint, he is correct. Since changing cables does not cause significant frequency response changes, they cannot make a difference.

When he understands differential localization, his science basis will change. Then he will support what you experience..till then, he has to live by his views of science. That is not a bad thing, btw..science is not anarchy..

Once he understands differential localization, I will introduce him to differential image localization stability. Unfortunately, understanding the latter requires understanding the former..


Even ye scientists don't always agree, eh? :)

It would be boring if we did.

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

...that it's probably a bit of both...

About 20yrs. ago when I installed my half-octave EQ I decided, quite to the contrary of everything I had read, to use music and my ears to set it up...To my ears, I was able to bring various instruments in and out of focus (for lack of better words)...most notably a snare drum...Unfortunately other instruments suffered and there was little or no track-to-track continuity...In hindsight I would hazard a guess that the miking techniques coupled with the attendant loss of the required audio cues (due to multi-tracking and use of the pan pot which JN often cites) was, in concert with FR changes, responsible for this ability/inability...

jimHJJ(...with maybe a little phase error/correction thrown in for good measure...)

[Mr Peabody]

I feel like Shane here :) What you are saying J makes sense but I still don't understand how it applies to cable burn in or anything else because we are always changing position or shifting our body around in our sitting spot. If I understand what you are saying, and I don't think I do, our system would sound different every time we turn it on.

To confuse the issue, if there is no burn in why do some cables provide arrows or other markings so we can keep the flow the same direction when hooking it back up? We know that oxygen free copper sounds better than typical copper because there are about 66% less crystals in the oxygen free copper to hinder flow. We also know that silver sounds different than copper and copper over aluminum, wouldn't differences such as these and how the wires are stranded, wound, insulated etc, account for the difference in sound?

[hermanv]

Mr ruadmaa: Although it is possible to measure certain things with great precision and accuracy, one needs to know ahead of time what the thing is one wants to measure. Generic testing (like say an oscilloscope) rarely produces answers better than 1 or 2%. Human ears are much better than this. People who have studied and measure cable effects often hide their results by going into the cable business (see for example: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue7/empiricalint.htm ) Its also worth noting that the telephone company who sends poor quality audio over long distances found long ago that wires are most important, and that those details like capacitance and inductance can make ordinary speech unintelligible when the wires are long enough. So, short wires must by definition also degrade the sound, just less so.

Mr. Peabody: Some cables are constructed to be directional. As an example consider the cable with two conductors and a shield. The two conductors go from one end to the other but the shield is often connected at only one end. By grounding the shield only at one end it provides its intended shielding function but can not conduct signal current or ground return current. This cable is mechanically directional (usually the shield is grounded at the source end)

With this technique a single ended cable can provide a little bit of the common mode current cancellation offered by balanced connections.

Whether cables that are fully symmetrical also exhibit directional bias after long use is a different question altogether, mine seem to, it is subtle and goes away within a few hours. I’ll argue neither side of this one.

JNeutron: My system sounds better when its been on a while. All the parts are electrically locked (to borrow your term). Although it might be possible that I am re-learning or acclimating to it's sound, I don't think this is it (no, I can not prove this). If it were just heat (many components change parameters with temperature) the system wouldn't need warm up on hot days or at least less of it. I doubt if the answer is quite that simple. I know plastics used as insulators accumulate electrons very slowly and release them even slower, this might be part of the answer. Since we last traded ideas, I have done much reading on cable effects and built many cables. I can now build a predictably good cable at will because it turns out there is indeed an audio cable science, the answers are available on the net.

The trouble with cable wars is the shouting of absolutes. Sad, the whole issue is about subtle distinctions

[Fergymunster]

Mr ruadmaa: Although it is possible to measure certain things with great precision and accuracy, one needs to know ahead of time what the thing is one wants to measure. Generic testing (like say an oscilloscope) rarely produces answers better than 1 or 2%. Human ears are much better than this. People who have studied and measure cable effects often hide their results by going into the cable business (see for example: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue7/empiricalint.htm ) Its also worth noting that the telephone company who sends poor quality audio over long distances found long ago that wires are most important, and that those details like capacitance and inductance can make ordinary speech unintelligible when the wires are long enough. So, short wires must by definition also degrade the sound, just less so.

Mr. Peabody: Some cables are constructed to be directional. As an example consider the cable with two conductors and a shield. The two conductors go from one end to the other but the shield is often connected at only one end. By grounding the shield only at one end it provides its intended shielding function but can not conduct signal current or ground return current. This cable is mechanically directional (usually the shield is grounded at the source end)

With this technique a single ended cable can provide a little bit of the common mode current cancellation offered by balanced connections.

Whether cables that are fully symmetrical also exhibit directional bias after long use is a different question altogether, mine seem to, it is subtle and goes away within a few hours. I’ll argue neither side of this one.

JNeutron: My system sounds better when its been on a while. All the parts are electrically locked (to borrow your term). Although it might be possible that I am re-learning or acclimating to it's sound, I don't think this is it (no, I can not prove this). If it were just heat (many components change parameters with temperature) the system wouldn't need warm up on hot days or at least less of it. I doubt if the answer is quite that simple. I know plastics used as insulators accumulate electrons very slowly and release them even slower, this might be part of the answer. Since we last traded ideas, I have done much reading on cable effects and built many cables. I can now build a predictably good cable at will because it turns out there is indeed an audio cable science, the answers are available on the net.

The trouble with cable wars is the shouting of absolutes. Sad, the whole issue is about subtle distinctions
I'm curious about what you said about warm up.I've experience this with my system in that after about 30 minutes of continuous play it indeed sounds better.Thus my original post suggesting the AQ Jaguar with DBS.My thinking was that with the attached battery pack it would speed up the process.Yes or No? Furthurmore, I could live with the AQ king cobra in that it just takes a little more time to warm up and the AQ Jaguar is just one for convenience sake.Yes or No?Mind you I'm only a begginer and I'm impressed with the AQ king cobra.

[Fergymunster]

I'm curious about what you said about warm up.I've experience this with my system in that after about 30 minutes of continuous play it indeed sounds better.Thus my original post suggesting the AQ Jaguar with DBS.My thinking was that with the attached battery pack it would speed up the process.Yes or No? Furthurmore, I could live with the AQ king cobra in that it just takes a little more time to warm up and the AQ Jaguar is just one for convenience sake.Yes or No?Mind you I'm only a begginer and I'm impressed with the AQ king cobra.
Forget it,as I answered my own questions.In other words I'm keeping the King Cobra as it's truely an exceptional interconnect for the price.

[hermanv]

I'm curious about what you said about warm up.I've experience this with my system in that after about 30 minutes of continuous play it indeed sounds better.Thus my original post suggesting the AQ Jaguar with DBS.My thinking was that with the attached battery pack it would speed up the process.Yes or No? Furthurmore, I could live with the AQ king cobra in that it just takes a little more time to warm up and the AQ Jaguar is just one for convenience sake.Yes or No?Mind you I'm only a begginer and I'm impressed with the AQ king cobra.

I am an electronic engineer by training and trade, many things I was taught professionally seem to be simplifications of the true process. Other than allowing for heat build-up in the various active devices the EE community as a whole denies there is anything more complex going on. (They also say this about cables and many claim that any properly designed amp is indistuingisihable from any other well designed amp) My experience does not match these beliefs.

Warm up and break in, to me at least, have quite similar sonic signatures (they certainly span quite different time frames), but the thing I usually hear is an increase in "ease" a difference of making the sounds without trying as hard. Probably a poor explanation, but that is mostly what I hear. The warmed up (or broken in) system is more relaxed, it still has great or even more detail but it doesn't have that stark outline like an over enhanced TV image, detail appears without excessive treble. Some cables initially seem to increase detail, but long term listening reveals them to be over-hyped and artificial, long term listening to cables like this for me produces listener fatigue.

So the short answer is I don't know. The battery pack would in theory eliminate any power supply warm up, but we don't know whether or not power supply warm up matters.

Is it possible to design truly great sounding equipment without using exotic overpriced parts? Vishay metal foil resistors on a glass substrate sound better to me (at about $10 each retail they damn well ought to), but an Ohmeter confirms that they have identical resistance to a common one penny metal film resistor. Capacitors with Teflon dielectric (mostly understood due to lowest dielectric absorbtion) usually sound best, but why should silver foil or copper foil sound better than aluminun foil? This as far as I know is not understood, There are some distortion tests that show the exotics have lower distortion, but no real explanation of why this should be true.

When attempts are made to disuss these effects, inevitably some one will drown out the discussion with shouts of "where's the proof?" "You're all buying snake oil, you must be stupid". Obviously this person doesn't hear what most audiophles hear.

[jneutron]

I feel like Shane here :) What you are saying J makes sense but I still don't understand how it applies to cable burn in or anything else because we are always changing position or shifting our body around in our sitting spot. If I understand what you are saying, and I don't think I do, our system would sound different every time we turn it on.
The distinction lies in the term differential localization. Simple localization is the ability to locate a source in space. That requires our head be in a vice to repeatably see the same image, and it is limited by our abilities with respect to absolute position. . Differential localization is the act of determining the relative positioning of the multiple images with respect to each image. We use aural feedback to locate the receiver pair..If you were to randomly put the listening position into different locations, both in the sweet spot and out, you would certainly notice differences.

Differential localization is initially considered as the ability to separate in space, the two sources. That is simply logical. What is not intuitive is the possibility that one source can have it's signal corrupted channel to channel versus frequency. If you delay the sibilance of a mono signal on the right channel only, it will drift to the left of the rest of the content..It is easy enough to demonstrate this with a female vocal and a decent graphic eq.


We know that oxygen free copper sounds better than typical copper because there are about 66% less crystals in the oxygen free copper to hinder flow.
Actually, we don't know that. And guaranteed, any experimentation to show such is flawed, as they are never done with adequate controls. If you believe the "white papers" that promote such stuff, that is a different issue...not a scientific one, but one of believing without understanding. That has always been a problem, and is more so one now that the internet provides a platform for anyone, even crackpots, to espouse any silly idea they wish.

As for the crystal boundaries, I can indeed measure the effect. The conductivity of copper down near absolute zero is hugely affected by grain boundaries, impurities, and lattice defects. Copper conductivity can increase by a factor of 1000 if it is good quality stuff, the electrons can move up to 10 cm before a "collision", whereas at room, it's closer to a millionth of a cm. Given a wire where each electron experiences 50 to 100 million collisions along it's length, do you really think a thousand more is significant?


We also know that silver sounds different than copper and copper over aluminum, wouldn't differences such as these and how the wires are stranded, wound, insulated etc, account for the difference in sound?
It is not as clear that conductivity has no effect, nor stranding, insulation, or geometry. Since the researchers have yet to consider what is looked for in terms of imaging, there is no verifiable proof one way or the other..lots of arguments, but that only treads water.

What is clear is the abysmal record of those who sell such stuff, and the silly white papers..while techy sounding, full of nonsense. They do nothing to advance the science or end the arguments, but they do advance someone's wallet.

Of course, articles like that one I just pointed out the errors of also do nothing to advance the science. It appears to just be a rant, without much scientific substance. In that case, it is also...about his wallet..

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

JNeutron: My system sounds better when its been on a while. All the parts are electrically locked (to borrow your term). Although it might be possible that I am re-learning or acclimating to it's sound, I don't think this is it (no, I can not prove this). If it were just heat (many components change parameters with temperature) the system wouldn't need warm up on hot days or at least less of it. I doubt if the answer is quite that simple. I know plastics used as insulators accumulate electrons very slowly and release them even slower, this might be part of the answer.
By on a while, do you mean listening a while, or just on.

Drift of the circuitry during warmup is hugely established, there is absolutely no question of that. What is not answered is can that drift affect the imaging parameters, and I've no answer to that since nobody's established measurement criteria..heck, nobody understands the required criteria.

Hot days.... It's not the absolute temperature that is the issue for most components, it is the differential temperatures, or gradients, within the chassis, and sometimes within the components themselves. Lab grade instrumentation is not guaranteed as within calibration until a specified warmup period, that period depending on the piece itself.

Something as simple as the idle current of an output stage has thermal time constants measured in minutes or hours. The tracking device is usually on the heatsink, not on the transistor surface where it is really needed.

Since we last traded ideas, I have done much reading on cable effects and built many cables. I can now build a predictably good cable at will because it turns out there is indeed an audio cable science, the answers are available on the net..
Cool. Have you established any type of correlation between what you built and how it sounded?

Careful on getting info from the net, however..there are so many jerks out there, that you will have a hard time avoiding them.....there are so many of us..:)

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

I am an electronic engineer by training and trade

You have my sympathies..

Me too, btw..don't think I'm dissin ya..


many things I was taught professionally seem to be simplifications of the true process.
Yah, the actuals can be too complex, and hinder use. Skin effect being one of them, with improper use of the "exponential depth" approximation..


and many claim that any properly designed amp is indistuingisihable from any other well designed amp)

Actually I would claim the same thing. However, that said, I also have to say that there are NO properly designed amps out there. Some are better than others, but the designers are just shooting craps without understanding what's going on. Random, random..random..

Cheers, John

[Fergymunster]

I am an electronic engineer by training and trade, many things I was taught professionally seem to be simplifications of the true process. Other than allowing for heat build-up in the various active devices the EE community as a whole denies there is anything more complex going on. (They also say this about cables and many claim that any properly designed amp is indistuingisihable from any other well designed amp) My experience does not match these beliefs.

Warm up and break in, to me at least, have quite similar sonic signatures (they certainly span quite different time frames), but the thing I usually hear is an increase in "ease" a difference of making the sounds without trying as hard. Probably a poor explanation, but that is mostly what I hear. The warmed up (or broken in) system is more relaxed, it still has great or even more detail but it doesn't have that stark outline like an over enhanced TV image, detail appears without excessive treble. Some cables initially seem to increase detail, but long term listening reveals them to be over-hyped and artificial, long term listening to cables like this for me produces listener fatigue.

So the short answer is I don't know. The battery pack would in theory eliminate any power supply warm up, but we don't know whether or not power supply warm up matters.

Is it possible to design truly great sounding equipment without using exotic overpriced parts? Vishay metal foil resistors on a glass substrate sound better to me (at about $10 each retail they damn well ought to), but an Ohmeter confirms that they have identical resistance to a common one penny metal film resistor. Capacitors with Teflon dielectric (mostly understood due to lowest dielectric absorbtion) usually sound best, but why should silver foil or copper foil sound better than aluminun foil? This as far as I know is not understood, There are some distortion tests that show the exotics have lower distortion, but no real explanation of why this should be true.

When attempts are made to disuss these effects, inevitably some one will drown out the discussion with shouts of "where's the proof?" "You're all buying snake oil, you must be stupid". Obviously this person doesn't hear what most audiophles hear.
I surly don't understand your insight and your technical jargon fully.Nonetheless,thanks for the responce as I'm very content with my cable.

[hermanv]

For me the difference between various cables is often easy to hear and just as often difficult to describe I appologize for any jargon, did not mean to act in any way superior or necessarily knowledgable for that matter.

As to insight, I guess my ears work. Mostly that's what's needed.

Many audiophiles seem to share the feeling that the really expensive stuff is better sounding and that we can't quite come to terms with the cost. My favorite interconnect cable retails at near $900. (I doubt if it's the best there is, I refuse to consider spending even more) and somehow it seems high. The holy grail of course is a great cable for 50 bucks. After all, that's how much a decent cable is in the mass market store costs, how much differnce can there be?

Many of us have similar problems with the electronics, we know the number of units sold is low, but so is the parts count. Since many of the small specialty houses go out of bussiness regularly I doubt if the myth that's it all a scam is true, but still, $5,000 for a decent amp?

The problem is that $5,000 amp just plain sounds better than the $500 mass market model that as often as not actuallly has better specs. It's no wonder that so many cry foul and suspect we are making it up.

All of this promted my friend and I to design and build our own speakers, why pay all that markup? So here we are 7 years later with an investment of over $8,000 in parts and we are almost done. Suddenly speakers that sound as good as ours selling for around $20,000 and higher just don't seem unreasonable anymore. Still, 20 grand for a wood box with some stuff in it? Nowhere near as complex as a car, but you can buy a new car for that same $20 grand.

Music is about a performance by artists, no one disputes that you can tell Beethovens 9th on a $10 radio but the differences between one performance and the next, between this artist and that artist, between one instrument maker and another. All this is there in the music, the better equipment allows the listener to experience these details. When it all works it is truly a deep emotional experience. For me worth the cost, but this doesn't stop me from wanting even more performance for even less money.

[Fergymunster]

For me the difference between various cables is often easy to hear and just as often difficult to describe I appologize for any jargon, did not mean to act in any way superior or necessarily knowledgable for that matter.

As to insight, I guess my ears work. Mostly that's what's needed.

Many audiophiles seem to share the feeling that the really expensive stuff is better sounding and that we can't quite come to terms with the cost. My favorite interconnect cable retails at near $900. (I doubt if it's the best there is, I refuse to consider spending even more) and somehow it seems high. The holy grail of course is a great cable for 50 bucks. After all, that's how much a decent cable is in the mass market store costs, how much differnce can there be?

Many of us have similar problems with the electronics, we know the number of units sold is low, but so is the parts count. Since many of the small specialty houses go out of bussiness regularly I doubt if the myth that's it all a scam is true, but still, $5,000 for a decent amp?

The problem is that $5,000 amp just plain sounds better than the $500 mass market model that as often as not actuallly has better specs. It's no wonder that so many cry foul and suspect we are making it up.

All of this promted my friend and I to design and build our own speakers, why pay all that markup? So here we are 7 years later with an investment of over $8,000 in parts and we are almost done. Suddenly speakers that sound as good as ours selling for around $20,000 and higher just don't seem unreasonable anymore. Still, 20 grand for a wood box with some stuff in it? Nowhere near as complex as a car, but you can buy a new car for that same $20 grand.

Music is about a performance by artists, no one disputes that you can tell Beethovens 9th on a $10 radio but the differences between one performance and the next, between this artist and that artist, between one instrument maker and another. All this is there in the music, the better equipment allows the listener to experience these details. When it all works it is truly a deep emotional experience. For me worth the cost, but this doesn't stop me from wanting even more performance for even less money.
WOW,my system cost me around $1400 and I hear nor detect not a flaw in it's performance.Punch my name and you can see my concocted systems and see what you think.

[hermanv]

Damned if I know where to draw the line between elitism, listening skill and bragging rights.

When I heard my first high end system I suddenly knew my Sansui amp and Servo Linear speakers weren't doing the job. I junked all the electronics and bought Denon individual pieces, 20 bit CD player, Denon pre and 110 Watt per channel power (kept the speakers). I was truly happy for about 6 months. That's when I made the mistake of revisiting my friend who had the high end system. Damn, the Denon stuff didn't cut it for me.

So first I decided speakers were very important, I went to many stores and listened intently for something in the $2,000 range. I settle on some Dahlquist DQ32 a three way with a poly cone mid and silk dome tweeter, has a 10" woof that reaches 22Hz in the spec sheet. Not at all a bad speaker in retrospect. Long since relegated to my home theater where they do just fine.

Next I jumped to a Conrad Johnson PV12L a tube linestage (no phono) and a C-J DAC2(?) then I bought a C-J MF2300A 240w/channel big brute of an amp. Folowed by another speaker upgrade, this time Martin Logan ReQuests. By now I've learned all about the internet and used gear.

Now I'm solidly in the audio nut camp, spent loo much money only to discover that the ol' 12 gauge zip cord and gold plated interconnects just wouldn't do. So close to another grand later, Monster M1000 and Kimber speaker cable I do indeed have good sound. All my friends think I'm nuts, it takes most of them a few years to discover that my stuff does plain sound better especially for long listening sessions. Since all this there have been many other upgrades allways more money allways to my ears better sound.

So if you are happy with $1,400 obviously there is nothing is wrong with that. Does it sound the same as my gear? Probably not. Can anyone hear the difference? Maybe not right away, but most would instantly if they were side by side.

[E-Stat]

When I heard my first high end system I suddenly knew my Sansui amp and Servo Linear speakers weren't doing the job.
My wake up call that Julian Hirsch, et. al. were all start naked (a rather scary thought actually) came in 1974 when I first heard Magneplanar Tympani IIIs tri-amped with Audio Research electronics. Hey, this sounds waaaay more like music than AR-LSTs driven by a Phase Linear 400. Calling Julian from the great beyond, were you just deaf?


Can anyone hear the difference? Maybe not right away, but most would instantly if they were side by side.
Indeed it does take time and ideally, some training to discern all there is to hear. One question is whether or not that is important to someone. As for me, I take delight in hearing new information from a familiar piece of music. Hearing HP's various review systems since 1980 has recalibrated my frame of reference as to what is possible a couple of times. Visiting him has cost be a bundle over the years. :)

Nice system, BTW. I've always liked C-J stuff beginning with the Reference One amp and naturally, the purity of electrostats. I do favor the full range flavor though.

rw

[hermanv]

That was then.

Now; Pass Labs X250, homemade passive pre (Vishay S102 resistors and Shallco solid silver contact switch, Cardas silver wire and connectors) Mark Levinson No 36 and currently Olive Musica for CD transport/storage. Wire World Gold Eclipse and Kimber/Homebrew Audio Bi wire for speakers.

Martin Logans (being rebuilt) to be replaced with homebrew 3 way speakers. These use all Skaaning designed drivers, Audio Technology Cequenze mid, Revelator Tweet and Scan Speak woof. Exotic caps and coils in insanely expensive crossover all wired with Cardas silver wire never mind homebrew speaker cables at far more money than one could believe. Silver and Rhodium lugs, litz wire, it never ends, but it does sound fine.

Don't want to discuss total cash outlay, you can't make me:).

[Fergymunster]

Damned if I know where to draw the line between elitism, listening skill and bragging rights.

When I heard my first high end system I suddenly knew my Sansui amp and Servo Linear speakers weren't doing the job. I junked all the electronics and bought Denon individual pieces, 20 bit CD player, Denon pre and 110 Watt per channel power (kept the speakers). I was truly happy for about 6 months. That's when I made the mistake of revisiting my friend who had the high end system. Damn, the Denon stuff didn't cut it for me.

So first I decided speakers were very important, I went to many stores and listened intently for something in the $2,000 range. I settle on some Dahlquist DQ32 a three way with a poly cone mid and silk dome tweeter, has a 10" woof that reaches 22Hz in the spec sheet. Not at all a bad speaker in retrospect. Long since relegated to my home theater where they do just fine.

Next I jumped to a Conrad Johnson PV12L a tube linestage (no phono) and a C-J DAC2(?) then I bought a C-J MF2300A 240w/channel big brute of an amp. Folowed by another speaker upgrade, this time Martin Logan ReQuests. By now I've learned all about the internet and used gear.

Now I'm solidly in the audio nut camp, spent loo much money only to discover that the ol' 12 gauge zip cord and gold plated interconnects just wouldn't do. So close to another grand later, Monster M1000 and Kimber speaker cable I do indeed have good sound. All my friends think I'm nuts, it takes most of them a few years to discover that my stuff does plain sound better especially for long listening sessions. Since all this there have been many other upgrades allways more money allways to my ears better sound.

So if you are happy with $1,400 obviously there is nothing is wrong with that. Does it sound the same as my gear? Probably not. Can anyone hear the difference? Maybe not right away, but most would instantly if they were side by side.
I sat on my systems for six months waiting to reap the benifits of the various combinations.I'm just now reaping the full benifits of these choices.Does your systems sound better than mine, I haven't the fooggist clue as it's my ears I have to please.For me my decsions have been finalized, so there is no more of me trying to better it by adding this that and the other thing.

[hermanv]

If you have the disease (up grade itis) 6 months means nothing.

Each time I buy a new piece, and yes it often takes 6 months to acustom me, my room, cables, break in etc. I think - wow this is it, boy have I got it made now. Then........

Please, no possible insult or slight of anykind was meant. I envy people who own systems at the $100K up mark, if I had a spare $100K is this how I would spend it? Probably not.

There is no argument about the diminshing returns, less and less improvement for more and more money. Each person needs to determine their own threshold of enough.

[Fergymunster]

If you have the disease (up grade itis) 6 months means nothing.

Each time I buy a new piece, and yes it often takes 6 months to acustom me, my room, cables, break in etc. I think - wow this is it, boy have I got it made now. Then........

Please, no possible insult or slight of anykind was meant. I envy people who own systems at the $100K up mark, if I had a spare $100K is this how I would spend it? Probably not.

There is no argument about the diminshing returns, less and less improvement for more and more money. Each person needs to determine their own threshold of enough.
I don't mean to belabour the point but I did extensive reaserch to arrive at the conclustions I did.I've been wondering around the internet and people for example are buying 4 or 5 different power cords to just get the right sound.This to me anyway seems foolish.For some if they don't here a difference within a two week period there off on another quest.This would only led me to the conclustion that in my opinon it is an addiction plan and simple.Perhaps I got lucky in my choices or no a little about electronics and buy the way I'm not in the poor house writing this.Just my 2 cents of course

[hermanv]

Belabor all you want, it’s a public chat process and it wouldn’t exist if all of us were in agreement.

My good friend had a Kimber KCAG set of interconnects, these are pure silver by a well regarded company and get steadily good reviews, they were wonderful. I think they retail for about $450 per meter and they sounded great. So, life was great, right up to the time he upgraded his system. Now the KCAG which was as good as anything we'd heard, was not as good as stuff costing much more. The point is that his new better system revealed details that his lesser system could not. (ps his old system was worth around $7-9K not junk by any definition and it sounded good.)

This is why there is an upgrade spiral, its not that you’re not good enough to hear these things but the system quality floor may hide things from you. So you buy one new piece, and suddenly that other component, perfectly good up till now is revealed as having some inadequacies or limitations.

So the hunt begins, how do I improve my system without breaking the bank? This is a primary cause of the endless debates on these forums about how much money makes sense. What piece should I upgrade first? Should I spend the money on the room? Is SACD worth the cost, what about Vinyl? Most of us have financial limits smaller than our wish lists (just as true for camera nuts, car nuts or boating enthusiasts).

In this hobby, it’s harder because much of the debate covers subjective distinctions, equipment to measure how good music sounds (or even how accurate is the sonic copy) just doesn’t exist and maybe never will because personal taste does enter the picture.

So belabor happily along, all of it adds to the pool of shared knowledge I learn new stuff regularly and occasionally find myself eating a little crow. I usually drop of the forums in a snit, but I’m back in a couple of days.

[Fergymunster]

Belabor all you want, it’s a public chat process and it wouldn’t exist if all of us were in agreement.

My good friend had a Kimber KCAG set of interconnects, these are pure silver by a well regarded company and get steadily good reviews, they were wonderful. I think they retail for about $450 per meter and they sounded great. So, life was great, right up to the time he upgraded his system. Now the KCAG which was as good as anything we'd heard, was not as good as stuff costing much more. The point is that his new better system revealed details that his lesser system could not. (ps his old system was worth around $7-9K not junk by any definition and it sounded good.)

This is why there is an upgrade spiral, its not that you’re not good enough to hear these things but the system quality floor may hide things from you. So you buy one new piece, and suddenly that other component, perfectly good up till now is revealed as having some inadequacies or limitations.

So the hunt begins, how do I improve my system without breaking the bank? This is a primary cause of the endless debates on these forums about how much money makes sense. What piece should I upgrade first? Should I spend the money on the room? Is SACD worth the cost, what about Vinyl? Most of us have financial limits smaller than our wish lists (just as true for camera nuts, car nuts or boating enthusiasts).

In this hobby, it’s harder because much of the debate covers subjective distinctions, equipment to measure how good music sounds (or even how accurate is the sonic copy) just doesn’t exist and maybe never will because personal taste does enter the picture.

So belabor happily along, all of it adds to the pool of shared knowledge I learn new stuff regularly and occasionally find myself eating a little crow. I usually drop of the forums in a snit, but I’m back in a couple of days.
Look,I'm just cranky so I'm not after you.I really don't know that much anyway so I'll leave it up to the professionals.Peace

[Fergymunster]

Look,I'm just cranky so I'm not after you.I really don't know that much anyway so I'll leave it up to the professionals.Peace
Actually I owe you an apology.I was just frustrated about the power cord industry as there is not one more thing you could do to a power cord that already hasn't been done.As a beginner I had to navigate myself around on my own and hopefully the PC epidemic has reached it's peck or comming to a close.Again my apologies.

[hermanv]

If that's your idea of being cranky, you are indeed a forum newbie, hell most disagreements contain more venom in the first word.

No offense taken. Enjoy the hobby, love the music:) .

[musicoverall]

My wake up call that Julian Hirsch, et. al. were all start naked (a rather scary thought actually) came in 1974 when I first heard Magneplanar Tympani IIIs tri-amped with Audio Research electronics. Hey, this sounds waaaay more like music than AR-LSTs driven by a Phase Linear 400. Calling Julian from the great beyond, were you just deaf?


Indeed it does take time and ideally, some training to discern all there is to hear. One question is whether or not that is important to someone. As for me, I take delight in hearing new information from a familiar piece of music. Hearing HP's various review systems since 1980 has recalibrated my frame of reference as to what is possible a couple of times. Visiting him has cost be a bundle over the years. :)

Nice system, BTW. I've always liked C-J stuff beginning with the Reference One amp and naturally, the purity of electrostats. I do favor the full range flavor though.

rw

I seem to recall a quote from sometime back - something like "Julian Hirsch wasn't on the take - he was just deaf" which I believe stemmed from someone being asked if Julian was on the take due to his constant "they all sound the same" stance. :)

But I wonder if Julian and the et al you refer to weren't deaf at all - just predisposed.

[jneutron]

as there is not one more thing you could do to a power cord that already hasn't been done..
:confused5: :confused5: :confused5:





As a beginner I had to navigate myself around on my own and hopefully the PC epidemic has reached it's peck or comming to a close.
Nah,that will not happen as long as you are sold amplifiers as they currently exist.

John

[Fergymunster]

:confused5: :confused5: :confused5:





Nah,that will not happen as long as you are sold amplifiers as they currently exist.

John
I've decided to keep my mouth shut as it's not worth my energy, as most times I'm usually low key.Thanks

[jneutron]

I've decided to keep my mouth shut as it's not worth my energy, as most times I'm usually low key.Thanks
:confused5:

Your no fun.:(

Enjoy

Cheers, John

[Fergymunster]

:confused5:

Your no fun.:(

Enjoy

Cheers, John
LOL.thanks

[Resident Loser]

:confused5: :confused5: :confused5:

Nah,that will not happen as long as you are sold amplifiers as they currently exist.

John

...I'll bite...highlight some of the salient points re: PC/amp SOTA...

jimHJJ(...Don't get too techie, I'm only a HS grad w/ a semester of higher ed...)

[jneutron]

...I'll bite...highlight some of the salient points re: PC/amp SOTA...

jimHJJ(...Don't get too techie, I'm only a HS grad w/ a semester of higher ed...)

1. The IEC connector housing is black...need I say any more??

2. The chamfer on the male cannot be hard , min radius should be 20 mils.

3. It needs to be able to rotate. Plus/minus 90 degrees, to accomodate which direction the faceplate is looking.

4. Anodizing has to be type 3, 8 mils thick...and neon purple.

5. Ya need a cable clamp next to the IEC, to hold the pc in place while you swing the amp over your head...during aggressive listening sessions.

Noon, and you expect real answers??? I'm hungry... Sheesh, you must gotten hit on da head with a nail removing implement, no?? Any scars?

Later...I'll (try) to get serious...stomach's growlin now, too loud..must obey..

Cheers, John

[hermanv]

1. Take any collection of 3 or more audiophiles.
2. Poke at them with a sharp stick
3. Stand back.

[Resident Loser]

1. The IEC connector housing is black...need I say any more??

Cheers, John

...ignorant dolt that I am...of course the lampblack-based colorant has a high carbon content and we all know the troubles that can cause...virgin white is the only way to go...hmmm...maybe ABS...glass-filled epoxy?

Any scars? Only the psychological ones...

Is it that time already?...I tend to graze...a Powerbar here, piece o'fruit there...

jimHJJ(...here a bite, there a bite...everywhere a bite bite...)

[jneutron]

...I'll bite...highlight some of the salient points re: PC/amp SOTA...

jimHJJ(...Don't get too techie, I'm only a HS grad w/ a semester of higher ed...)

1. Pull a 1Khz sine out of the output terminal with a shorted input...Measure the voltage that shows between the input ground, and the line cord ground at the outlet. Fix everything that causes that voltage.


2. Short the input, force 1 ampere sine 1Khz between the input shield and the line cord ground pin at the wall socket. Fix everything that is allowing the amp to amplify that. That will eliminate the ability of the amp to pickup ground loop hum, haversine coupling, and music reverse feedthrough.

3. Pull half the rated current from an output binding post, but do it DC.. Fix everything in the amp that is allowing haversine components to appear at the output.

Then, fix the line cord.

Once these steps are done, the difficult tests can be done.

Cheers, John

[balloonknot32]

I was curious to see for myself if the AQ DBS system was a fad or the real deal. I borrowed an AQ Hawk Eye digital co-ax cable from my local dealer and put it up against my AQ VDM-5 digital co-ax. The Hawk Eye is basically a VDM-5 with a battery pack so I thought this would be a fair test.

Without getting into all the swapping in and out of cables I did, the end result in my system was that the Hawk Eye sounded better than the VDM-5. To put it simply the Hawk Eye delivered every ounce of information that was coming out of my Sony DVP-S9000ES DVD player and sent it to my Anthem AVM 30. If the Hawk Eye was delivering 100% of the signal, the VDM-5 was sending 95%. It was a close test but I definately head a difference between the two cables. The opening attack scene from Master and Commander was absolutely insane. With the Hawk Eye, I was in the middle of that ship being attacked. Just an awesome experience.

I ended up keeping the Hawk Eye and use it for my DVD to Processor hook up. My VDM-5 got moved to my HD/PVR cable box. I'm still a little skeptical when it comes to AQ speaker cables with DBS, but at least with digital co-ax cables the Hawk Eye delivered the goods.

Just my 2 cents...:cornut:

[Resident Loser]

Without getting into all the swapping in and out of cables I did, the end result in my system was that the Hawk Eye sounded better than the VDM-5. To put it simply ***the Hawk Eye delivered every ounce of information that was coming out of my Sony DVP-S9000ES DVD player and sent it to my Anthem AVM 30.If the Hawk Eye was delivering 100% of the signal, the VDM-5 was sending 95%.*** It was a close test but I definately head a difference between the two cables. The opening attack scene from Master and Commander was absolutely insane. With the Hawk Eye, I was in the middle of that ship being attacked. Just an awesome experience.

...:cornut:

...b-u-u-u-t....you know this (***) how? What was your basis for this quantification?

Here is where we cross the line from objective, quantifiable evaluation to a subjective one, highly dependent on ABEs...

jimHJJ(...and therein lies the rub...)

[Resident Loser]

1. Pull a 1Khz sine out of the output terminal... Then, fix the line cord.

Once these steps are done, the difficult tests can be done.

Cheers, John

...you put de lime in de co-co-nut and drink 'em boat up...

Part one:

I think I get the nub of your gist, but I'm not sure of the crux of your biscuit...let me run it through my geek-to-idiot translator...

Okay, some basics (cuz I'ze dumm):

HAVERSINE A waveform that is sinusoidal in nature, but consists of a portion of a sine wave superimposed on another waveform. The input current waveform to a typical off-line power supply has the form of a haversine.

OFF LINE A power supply which receives its input power from the AC line, without using a 50/60 Hz power transformer prior to rectification and filtering, hence the term "off line" power supply.

(SOURCE: http://www.systemconnection.com/downloads/poweradapterkb/glossary.html)

OK, I get all that but, am I mistaken in thinking that audio power supplies reduce the voltage to required level(s) and then rectify? Or do they rectify the line voltage and then reduce it to required levels?

If the former, the haversine "problem" would seem to be minimal or non-existent...if the latter, my only question is: when did this come about and what were they thinking?

Part two:

Re: the other bits...are we basically talking about the difference in ground potential? That a ground isn't a ground, isn't a ground even though it's at zero potential vis-a-vis it's accompanying reference voltage? That the "ground" reference to the DC supplies isn't necessarily at the same potential as your garden-variety cold water pipe or 6ft. metal stake in the ground? That fact notwithstanding, it's considered a ground all the same?

jimHJJ(...or am I all wet...in which case I should avoid all electrical sources...)

[Resident Loser]

...just got around to acquainting myself with the original topic of this thread...(insert Woody Woodpecker noise here)...

DBS...Di-electric Biasing System (Pat. Pend.)...

Now this is the way my mind runs...in order for work to be done, energy must be expended...yet, as per their site, AQ says the 36VDC derived from common hardware store batteries, themselves subject to a no-load situation, should last for years...much as they would sitting on a shelf or safely ensconced in a blister-pak...No load, no loss, no work?

They are part of an open circuit...their job: charging a di-electric (which by it's definition is a non conductor of electric current)...S-o-o what do dey do?

jimHJJ(...IMHO it's DBS alright...D BS...)

[jneutron]

...you put de lime in de co-co-nut and drink 'em boat up...

Part one:

I think I get the nub of your gist, but I'm not sure of the crux of your biscuit...let me run it through my geek-to-idiot translator...

Okay, some basics (cuz I'ze dumm):

HAVERSINE A waveform that is sinusoidal in nature, but consists of a portion of a sine wave superimposed on another waveform. The input current waveform to a typical off-line power supply has the form of a haversine.

OFF LINE A power supply which receives its input power from the AC line, without using a 50/60 Hz power transformer prior to rectification and filtering, hence the term "off line" power supply.

(SOURCE: http://www.systemconnection.com/downloads/poweradapterkb/glossary.html)

OK, I get all that but, am I mistaken in thinking that audio power supplies reduce the voltage to required level(s) and then rectify? Or do they rectify the line voltage and then reduce it to required levels?

If the former, the haversine "problem" would seem to be minimal or non-existent...if the latter, my only question is: when did this come about and what were they thinking?

Part two:

Re: the other bits...are we basically talking about the difference in ground potential? That a ground isn't a ground, isn't a ground even though it's at zero potential vis-a-vis it's accompanying reference voltage? That the "ground" reference to the DC supplies isn't necessarily at the same potential as your garden-variety cold water pipe or 6ft. metal stake in the ground? That fact notwithstanding, it's considered a ground all the same?

jimHJJ(...or am I all wet...in which case I should avoid all electrical sources...)

All amplifiers I have seen to date will amplify a signal that is injected into the ground input of the amplifier. Ground loop hum is detected by this. Most amplifiers cause current to flow into their ground input because they create large haversine currents on the ground loop made by their connection to other line powered units.

Most, if not all, amplifiers, will create magnetic fields within the chassis, that are a result of the current that is being delivered to the load. Some amplifiers will pick this up and amplify it.

All big electrolytic capacitors lose about half their capacity at 20Khz, many are inductive by virtue of their construction.

When e/m field theory is considered with respect to amplifier design and construction, it is easy to see that nobody is paying attention to the details..you might as well design it to look like a bowl of spaghetti.

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

...just got around to acquainting myself with the original topic of this thread...(insert Woody Woodpecker noise here)...

DBS...Di-electric Biasing System (Pat. Pend.)...

Now this is the way my mind runs...in order for work to be done, energy must be expended...yet, as per their site, AQ says the 36VDC derived from common hardware store batteries, themselves subject to a no-load situation, should last for years...much as they would sitting on a shelf or safely ensconced in a blister-pak...No load, no loss, no work?

They are part of an open circuit...their job: charging a di-electric (which by it's definition is a non conductor of electric current)...S-o-o what do dey do?

jimHJJ(...IMHO it's DBS alright...D BS...)

Non linearity of dielectrics is an easily testable entity. Some are quite so.

Deviation from linearity is measureable..

Nothing to date has ever shown that this is of concern at speaker levels. Nothing.

At line levels, if it is an issue, fix the problem, don't use a band aid.

Cheers, John